Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

concealment writes "A judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case. Most of the books Google scans for its book program come from libraries. After Google scans each book, it provides a digital image and a text version of the book to the library that owns the original. The libraries then contribute the digital files to a repository called the Hathitrust Digital Library, which uses them for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who cannot read the print copies of the books."

What? By most accounts (by actual authors), being in the DB gets your books sold. Only the BS Authors Guild thinks this is a problem.

The interesting thing is that there's a massive, consistent and complete, collaborative digital archive of library print books and journals somewhere. If an Anon group wanted to do something really crazy, they'd pilfer that massive cache and release it unto the world.

What? By most accounts (by actual authors), being in the DB gets your books sold. Only the BS Authors Guild thinks this is a problem.

True, I suppose, but would it really have killed Google to just go out and buy a single copy of each book they scan? I think that would be more fair, and negligible in terms of cost to the almighty Google.

The interesting thing is that there's a massive, consistent and complete, collaborative digital archive of library print books and journals somewhere. If an Anon group wanted to do something really crazy, they'd pilfer that massive cache and release it unto the world.

True, I suppose, but would it really have killed Google to just go out and buy a single copy of each book they scan? I think that would be more fair, and negligible in terms of cost to the almighty Google.

These are old books that you can't get anywhere else. At what store do you believe Google can buy them, Barnes and Noble? Do you think they're getting them from libraries to be cheap?

A major aim of the project was to digitally preserve books that are out of print. Most of these can't be bought, by anyone.

Also, the authors of a significant fraction of these books cannot be located. So while many of these books are still covered by copyright, there's nobody available to pay anything to, or to get consent from (well, the Authors Guild might nominate themselves as "default" copyright holders somehow). For these books, proceeds from sales are held separately in trust, against future claims if the authors are eventually located. For the rest, identified authors naturally get the lion's share of sales. Google also profits from advertising, but authors are entitled to a 63% share of this too. And under various versions of the settlement, authors could even claim $60 per book, while Google does the all work of making their books more available to the public.

Money is not the issue; it's control - the Guild (and some actual authors) are mostly objecting that Google didn't ask first.

- - - - Also, the authors of a significant fraction of these books cannot be located.

Hmmm... incentives tend to matter. Under the Google archive plan, who has the incentive to go out and search diligently for the legal holders of copyright and publishing rights? 80 year old author starving in a garret, never received his last royalties due from his publishing house, who is going to work their butts off to find and pay him before they start selling his work from the archive?

The one with the most incentive is the one receiving the money; i.e. the author, the author's publisher, and possible any guilds to which the author may pay dues. As with most fields of business, if you want to collect money owed to you, you occasionally need to chase it up yourself (as your example demonstrates, if the putative author is having difficulty getting royalties from his existing publisher; maybe he'll have more luck if he contacts Google).

And I think quite a few Googlers might take exception to your characterising Google as "a money-making machine, period"; particularly Larry and Sergey. They've sunk a fair bit of cash into risky, public-benefit projects with no guaranteed return.

- - - - As with most fields of business, if you want to collect money owed to you, you occasionally need to chase it up yourself (as your example demonstrates, if the putative author is having difficulty getting royalties from his existing publisher; maybe he'll have more luck if he contacts Google). - - - -

Many authors characterize that as "stealing from the helpless". Isaac Asimov wrote quite a bit about the difficulties he had extracting his royalties from various publishing houses, and that was at a

I think there's something called "due dilligence". You could expect Google to try and track down the publisher or author. You might even expect them to go through available public records to track down the author if the publisher is no longer in business. You cannot reasonably expect them to go beyond that, hire private detectives, research archives or genealogy and invest large sums of money in order to search for somebody they will likely not find. Did Google do due dilligence or not?

The key point that much be brought up in these discussions is this: Google is a money-making machine. Period. It exists to make metric tons of money for its owners and officers. Period. It might do some interesting things, even some nice things, along the way - but it exists to make money. Who is making the money on this scheme, how, and what are the incentives to pay whom? Be helpful to get some straight answers to those questions.

Why do money matter? Copyright is not there to provide money to people. It's there to promote creation of new culture and science. What google does (making an archive of existing works) is very much in spirit of copyright as it enables authors to easily access and build upon existing knowledge.

On one hand, it's deplorable that Google isn't paying tribute to authors.

You need to get more info on this - Google is doing authors a favor here. They're taking tons of out of print and generally unavailable books, making them available online, and allowing authors who claim them to get most of the proceeds from their sales.

I think I finally see why the Author's guild is protesting. They don't care about authors who aren't under their umbrella, and the existence of more publically available work not under their umbrella cuts them out of the pie. Its analogous to how Big Media negotiates with radio/etc for exclusivity, and they're only allowed to play their music.

Uh-huh. Right, if you were to get a cent on every bottle, the bottle would go up in price by a cent. No-one's richer.

There's a fixed amount of money in the pot -- it's a question of when and where it gets distributed. You presumably have a stable job. You are paid monthly, come rain or shine. The author doesn't get that stable paycheque -- he is essentially gambling his labour value against the market. Your attitude seems to be that no-one's allowed to win the bet, but I'm guessing you're happy for pe

There is a 10c deposit here in South Australia for every can, bottle, plastic container sold, which is paid to you when returned to recycling centre. National moves are being made for implementation across country. Less rubbish, Geater recycling, business creation through return scheme. Zero sum cost price however great benefits for numerous other spinoffs.

Most of them are dead, and their works are in the public domain. For those that aren't you just get a tiny snippet view which encourages you to buy the very expensive out of print books, or buy the books from a publisher.

This is all about Google's ability to sell books, and the publishers don't like that. They sell books because you can search and bam, there's the book you need. No need to get it from a publisher.

Authors win here too, especially ones who will not typically be joined with a publisher.

Most of them are dead, and their works are in the public domain. For those that aren't you just get a tiny snippet view which encourages you to buy the very expensive out of print books, or buy the books from a publisher.

OK, I'm giving up moderator rights to post this, so you can tell I'm serious. The statement above is absolutely incorrect. This is NOT about public domain. There's no question that Google (or anybody else) can redistribute PD works. This is about Google scanning and then re-selling out-of-

- - - - Google's been scanning old books & magazines, stuff that's been out of print for ages and probably by rights already should be public domain, depending on the copyright date. - - - -

Uh, no. That may be the basis of the scanning project, but Google has been putting a lot more stuff than just "old" scanned books into Google Books. And by the way, many works whose authors have died are still under copyright according to the various laws that were in effect at the time of their publication.

It's not just a dupe, it's less accurate. The previous story at least has a title that makes it clear that they ruled in favor of libraries, not Google. There's a big difference, since it's Google doing the actual copying, not the libraries. If I rent a movie from Redbox, rip it and bittorrent, who's going to get in trouble - me or Redbox? Whether or not Google will get in trouble hasn't been decided yet.

If it is OK to scan documents for fair use and it is OK to break DRM then linking to GPL'ed code without having to be GPL'ed should be legal as well under interoperability terms.

Your rights end where mine begin. If you expose an API in your library then I have a right to link to it. As long as I do not copy the code into my codebase then you should have no say in how my code is licensed.

Have any of you had a miscommunication, never made a mistake while trying to do your job? It was a screwup, yeah, so what? I swear, some of you guys who post are real jerks. Shit happens, get over it already. Go to your mirrors, all of you, and if you see someone who's never made a mistake, on the job and in private, then you're either a frickin' computer or a liar. F#@*ing whiny a#%$@#es!

Oh, see I don't know the/. history in many areas, been on/off reader for 3 years, just began to post a few months ago. I'd just went off a little bit there, I apologize if my 'rant' was uncalled for. I will try to keep refining my behavior on/. .

Back when.home.computing was stillyoung, years before there was a google, there was.Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/ [gutenberg.org] , where volunteers donated their time and typed in and proofread books. They are still a prescence on the web, though they've had to take down.books due to.copyright restrictions. It was and still is a noble cause.

- - - - Back when.home.computing was stillyoung, years before there was a google, there was.Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/ [gutenberg.org] [gutenberg.org] , where volunteers donated their time and typed in and proofread books. - - - -

Last I checked, however, Project Gutenberg only captured text of books that were clearly in the public domain under the various copyright acts in force in the US and Europe since 1800. The complaint of many authors about Google and its proposed "settlements" is that Google is